Posted by Synopsys Editorial Team on March 11, 2016
What’s the difference between OAuth 1.0 and OAuth 2.0? And which version of OAuth is right for you? Hint: It’s not necessarily the latest one.
“Which version of OAuth is right for me?” You might expect the answer to this question to be “The latest, obviously.” But this is not necessarily the case. The changes that took place between OAuth 1.0 and OAuth 2.0 actually changed the nature of OAuth significantly enough that the two versions actually meet different needs, based on what you’re trying to accomplish. Why is that?
In December 2007, OAuth 1.0 addressed delegation with a framework based on digital signatures. It was secure and it was strong. Major players began to adopt it. Google began OAuth 1.0 support in 2008. By 2010, Twitter forced all third-party apps to use their OAuth 1.0 implementation.
However, OAuth 1.0 required crypto-implementation and crypto-interoperability. While secure, it was a challenge for many developers to implement.
Then came OAuth 2.0 in October 2012.
Building a secure OAuth solution is no easy challenge. Large enterprises joined the OAuth standard body and influenced it in many ways. While OAuth 2.0 is much easier to implement than OAuth 1.0 with its crypto underpinnings, the new version contains many compromises at the security level.
However, support for non-browser implementations and a clear separation of resource delivery and authorization helped make the new standard more usable for large enterprises and more.
In many cases, it is no longer feasible to use OAuth 1.0 as a client-side implementer. For example, Google moved away from OAuth 1.0 in April 2012, and no longer permits the use of OAuth 1.0. However, Twitter still fully supports OAuth 1.0.
It is very rare to see new authorization server implementations of OAuth 1.0. However, you can still consider OAuth 1.0 if your resource provider still supports it (and has committed to continue supporting it), you have developers with good experience in cryptography, and you have good key management capabilities.
These are a lot of “ifs,” and OAuth 2.0 is almost always the right choice today. If your desire is to use OAuth with proper cryptography, the trend is more and more to use OAuth 2.0 with cryptographic extensions.
Still wondering what to do? Compare the security properties of both versions and decide which is right for your implementation.
Note: Some use the OAuth 1.0 scope parameter to carry authorization/entitlement in addition to the token; that can be a useful architecture consideration.
Get the latest Software Integrity news, thought leadership, and more.